Talk:The Panipat Campaign of Marathas/@comment-182.64.57.186-20131022105639/@comment-4023596-20140112124135
Statement '- The invasions of path an Tribals in 1948 on kashmir is one good example '' '''Refutal - You are not considering the chaos resulted due to partition, and facilation of Punjab based Pakistan to carry out tribal invasion of Kashmir. Furthermore it was backed by regular Paki army, similar to Kashmir. This is nowhere similar to Abdali's invasion or Timur's or Babur's. Statement - In fact Loss at panipat exposed many inherent Hindu military weakneses namely their ability fight a pitched face to face battle with enemy rather than " hit and run and loot " which they were always good at , rampant religious obscurantism " like doing Tirath and puja while on war " and their overconfidence and belief in numbers , maratha army at panipat was the largest hindu army accumulated in 1000 years, their defeat by a smaller afghan army broke hindu confidence forever and nipped in the bud the grand design of "hindu rashtra" which the likes of RSS are still finding hard to sell ( realize) 300 years after panipat. Refutal - Why unnecessarily bring in RSS here? is that your agenda? Furthermore when you speak of Hindu military weakness, you have to take things in perspective. Marathas were winning and continued to win until 1800 using the same military tactics. The strategy of set-peice pitched battle under artillery cover was completely new to the world, even western world in 1760s. It was perfected later in Napoleonic era. Marathas learnt the necessary lesson from this battle and subsequent armies of Marathas was increasingly artillery-infantry based which continued to give them success against Mughals, Rajputs and British until 1802. Whilst Bhau is blamed for spending too much time at Kurukshetra, I do not find it obscurantist. Marathas were in that region to stay and Yamuna was flooded. Abdali found a way to cross Yamuna downstream of Kurukshetra (relatively) near Delhi before Marathas could, this is the tactical advantage on Abdali's side. Why are you compelled to blame "Hindu" religious practices for this? Yes, it was a mistake of Marathas which cost them dearly. Furthermore, your claim of "Never was a large Hindu army assembled before" is totally false. Vijaynagar empire commanded and fielded larger armies. Even Marathas have fielded and commandeered armies in lakhs. By that standards, Panipat was not a "Huge" maratha army (around 55000-60,000). And Smaller Hindu army of Marathas had defeated Abdali and driven him out of Peshawar 2 years before Panipat and held Punjab and attock for about an year. So no point in flagellating the unnecessary points. Statement '-'' ''It is a great tragedy that even Modern educated Hindus do not give due credence to their opponent's Courage and bravery, their ingenuity, their strong faith and resolve on the other hand The British and the Americans make even their microscopic enemies look good.'' '''Refutal - Then you have not read the works of Shejwalkar, Sardesai or even latest uday Kulkarni on the matter. It is funny to see you generalize all educated modern Hindus based on this article. It may or may not have noticed but bulk of material written on Panipat is precisely praising enemy and flagellating Marathas on the very points you have written. What you do not see is the courage, bravery, ingenuity and faith and resolve of Marathas. The premise of this article is precisely that. To present things from Maratha perspective. It is very easy to blame bhau for everything without understanding the prevalent political and military scenario for and against Marathas in contemporary India. Statement - Marathas as an army were hated in this country ( Hindus & Muslims alike ) , they led maurauding armies who looted and raped their fellow countrymen irrespective of their religion much like what afghans did in india, they even employed Pindaris who were professional looters solely for the purpose of loot and pillage , so people at that time had no sympathy with them ( Sacking of surat by shivaji is one good example where majority of the looted businessmen were hindu ) b) marthas even looted and destroyed temples : The destruction of temple of Renga Nath at Sri Rangapatnam during the war with mysore is a case in point . c) Marathas were poor administrators only interested in loot and not governance that is why they were rather happy in accepting chauth from inept indian rulers rather than taking over. Refutal - And what qualitative proof you have for the same? Some bengali lullaby? They were looting and pillaging "Mughal territory". Their military, their horeses and units were not designed to meet a resourceful mughal armies headon. Hence this scorched earth tactics. When the area came under stable Maratha rule, it prospered, even Odisha and central India and northern Karnataka. Surat was sacked because it was "Aurangzeb's" city. It was a mughal-held city. There is no evidence of Marathas plundering Ranganatha temple. They did pillage Shringeri Shankaracharya ashram but that was because ashram was helping Tipu agaisnt Marathas. Furthermore, Deccan was suffering from a terrible famine in 1790s. As far as chauth, well Mughals at times extracted 50% tax from their people. 25% is surely an improvement, no? how else you think were they supposed to raise revenue when India was pillaged and looted by Mugals and sultanate for 300 years prior? Once under stable occupation, please check the records of thanjavur, holkars, nagpur, pune, Vadodara, Gwalior, Cuttuck. They all show well-administered provinces. Statement - Thus, Marathas were not defending any religion at panipat but themselves. Refutal - Oh but the letters of Bhau and peshwa show contrary. Bhau and peshwa clearly write in their letters that the sapling of this foreigner abdali should not be allowed to take root in polity of Hindusthan at any cost. Bhau and marathas have long ago slapped in face of any such conclusion.I see a marxist bile in all this - partially because I have encountered it before and refuted it time and again. It is understandable why this point of view cannot see anything good about India and Hindus. Marathas were products of their time. And should be seen accordingly. With the baggage they carried and experiences they had, they made the choices they made - and they made those choices and acted on them "for establishment of Hindavi Swarajya" and for "liberation of hindu holy places in subcontinent". they used the terms, metaphors and language prevalent in those times. Thank you. Atri.